Pith. sign in

REVIEW

AG codes have no list-decoding friends: Approaching the generalized Singleton bound requires exponential alphabets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.13424 v2 pith:A2IC4H5L submitted 2023-08-25 cs.IT cs.DMmath.COmath.IT

AG codes have no list-decoding friends: Approaching the generalized Singleton bound requires exponential alphabets

classification cs.IT cs.DMmath.COmath.IT
keywords varepsilonboundcodeserrorfractionsingletonalphabetalphabets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A simple, recently observed generalization of the classical Singleton bound to list-decoding asserts that rate $R$ codes are not list-decodable using list-size $L$ beyond an error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R)$ (the Singleton bound being the case of $L=1$, i.e., unique decoding). We prove that in order to approach this bound for any fixed $L >1$, one needs exponential alphabets. Specifically, for every $L>1$ and $R\in(0,1)$, if a rate $R$ code can be list-of-$L$ decoded up to error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R -\varepsilon)$, then its alphabet must have size at least $\exp(\Omega_{L,R}(1/\varepsilon))$. This is in sharp contrast to the situation for unique decoding where certain families of rate $R$ algebraic-geometry (AG) codes over an alphabet of size $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ are unique-decodable up to error fraction $(1-R-\varepsilon)/2$. Our bounds hold even for subconstant $\varepsilon\ge 1/n$, implying that any code exactly achieving the $L$-th generalized Singleton bound requires alphabet size $2^{\Omega_{L,R}(n)}$. Previously this was only known only for $L=2$ under the additional assumptions that the code is both linear and MDS. Our lower bound is tight up to constant factors in the exponent -- with high probability random codes (or, as shown recently, even random linear codes) over $\exp(O_L(1/\varepsilon))$-sized alphabets, can be list-of-$L$ decoded up to error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R -\varepsilon)$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.